Episode 88
Supreme Court Roundup: June 12th Insights and New Cert Grants
In this episode, we analyze the Supreme Court's recent activities across three key areas:
- Six near unanimous decisions released on June 12th, 2025
- Two major cases granted certiorari via June 16th, 2025 Order
In this episode, we analyze the Supreme Court's recent activities across three key areas:
- Term statistics and remaining docket overview
- Six decisions released on June 12th, 2025
- Two major cases granted certiorari via June 16th, 2025 Order
2024 Term Statistics
- Total cases heard: 62 unique cases this term
- Cases decided: 41 (approximately 66%)
- Cases pending: 21 (approximately 33%)
- Methodology: Consolidated cases counted once (e.g., Trump v. CASA/Washington/New Jersey)
- Timing significance: June typically brings most consequential decisions
Key Observations from June 12th, 2025 Decisions
- Observation #1: Unanimity Reigned Supreme. June 12th consensus: 4 unanimous (9-0) decisions, 2 near-unanimous (8-1) decisions. Two-week pattern: 9 unanimous decisions and 3 8-1 splits out of 12 total case. Historical context: Must go back 15 opinions to find more than 2 dissents (May 22nd Oklahoma Charter School case). Full-term data: 29 of 41 decided cases unanimous or near-unanimous (71% consensus)
- Observation #2: Opinion Assignments Tell a Story. Recent distribution: 8 of 9 justices wrote majority opinions in past two weeks; Justice Kavanaugh who wrote sole opinion the week before)
- Observation #3: Speed Suggests Strategic Docket Management. Rapid turnaround: 6-10 weeks from oral argument to decision. Contrast with pending cases: U.S. v. Skrmetti (transgender medical care): 6+ months since December 4th argument; Hewitt v. United States (First Step Act): pending since January 13th; and Stanley v. City of Sanford (ADA): pending since January 13th.
- Observation #4: Uncle Sam Had a Bad Day. Government losses: 5 of 6 cases involved citizens vs. government agencies. Case types: FBI raid victims, disabled student vs. school district, veterans vs. benefits administration, prisoner vs. federal procedures, taxpayer vs. IRS. Pattern: Court prioritizing individual redress against institutional power. Only government win: Rivers v. Guerrero, which involved stricter habeas petition standards.
- Observation #5: The Court as Error Corrector. Reversal rate: 10 of 12 cases vacated or reversed (83%). Term comparison: Higher than overall 66% reversal rate. "Kick it back" approach: Court often vacates with instructions rather than final resolution
- Observation #6: Roberts' Perfect Record. Chief Justice pattern: 41 cases, 41 majority opinions joined. Zero concurrences, zero dissents. Contrast with other justices:Justice Thomas: 5 dissents, Justice Gorsuch: 4 dissents (including both June 12th dissents) and Justice Jackson: 3 dissents authored, 1 joined.
June 16th, 2025 Certiorari Grants
1. First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Matthew Platkin | Case No. 24-781 | Docket Link: Here.
Question Presented: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court?
Key Facts:
- New Jersey Attorney General issued civil investigatory subpoena to faith-based pregnancy center
- Subpoena sought donor identities, medical claims, operational practices
- First Choice filed federal § 1983 lawsuit two days before compliance deadline
- Complex parallel litigation in federal and state courts
Petitioner's Arguments:
- Circuit split: Fifth Circuit bars pre-enforcement challenges vs. Ninth Circuit allows when showing objective chill
- Concrete injury through chilling of First Amendment association/speech rights
- § 1983 guarantees federal forum; state court requirement creates "preclusion trap"
Respondent's Arguments:
- No circuit split—Third Circuit decision was fact-specific
- Case presents unique procedural complications unsuitable for broad resolution
- Claims too speculative under Article III ripeness doctrine
Stakes: Federal court access for constitutional challenges to state investigations
2. Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana | Case No. 24-813 | Docket Link: Here.
Questions Presented:
- Whether a causal-nexus or contractual direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute
- Whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract
Key Facts:
- Louisiana parishes sued oil companies for environmental harm from WWII-era crude oil production
- Companies sought federal officer removal based on WWII contracts to supply high-octane aviation gasoline
- Fifth Circuit found companies satisfied "acting under" requirement but failed "relating to" requirement
- Majority required explicit contractual directive about challenged conduct
Petitioner's Arguments:
- Fifth Circuit improperly required "explicit directive" in federal contracts
- Circuit split on federal officer removal standards
- Vertically integrated operations inherently connected crude production to federally-mandated refinement
Respondent's Arguments:
- No circuit conflict—decision was fact-specific, unpublished
- Federal crude oil allocation program "severed" connection by allowing open market purchases
- Contracts contained no directives about extraction methods or locations
Stakes: Determines whether climate litigation stays in state court (plaintiff preference) or moves to federal court (defendant preference); potential impact on all pending climate cases
Support the Podcast
If you found this analysis helpful, please subscribe, rate, and share this podcast. Your support helps us continue providing in-depth Supreme Court coverage.
Timestamps
[00:00:00] Introduction
[00:00:23] Decision Tally
[00:01:25] 6-Pack of Observations: June 12th Opinions
[00:09:52] June 16 Order List
[00:10:26] Cert Grant: First Choice v. Platkin
[00:13:36] Cert Grant: Chevron v. Plaquemines
